Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 15, 2020, 19:50 (46 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I've fully explained my version of why God conducted evolution as He did to produce us. Simply, one more repeat, God chose to evolve us. We were evolved, weren't we? Nothing illogical.

dhw: Simply one more repeat: The question which you have, as always, omitted and cannot answer is why, if his ONLY purpose was to evolve (in your language = directly design) us and our food supply, he first evolved (= designed) millions of non-human life forms and their food supplies which had nothing to do with us. Your failure to answer this question, together with your rejection of any other theistic explanation of life’s history and your God’s possible purpose(s) and method(s), is what causes this discussion to go on and on and on.

I've answered it over and over. God CHOSE to evolve us from bacteria as history shows. You won't accept that theory. I don't understand your discomfort. If He evolved us, your bold makes no sense, because it is a perfect description of evolution, and therefore has everything to do with us.


dhw: I have not distorted your theory and I have not rejected history. I have explained above (for the thousandth time) why your theory is illogical.

I do not find your rejection a clear explanation. i find it totally illogical.


dhw: My God would also be teleologically driven, and I have explained how different purposes might lead to the history of life as we know it. There is nothing namby-pamby about a God experimenting, learning as he goes along, or designing life for the pleasure of creation, or because – as you have suggested – he wants to have a life form that will appreciate his work or even have a relationship with him. I can imagine any of these purposes as his driving force, and all of them can fit in with the history of life as we know it. But you won’t allow your imagined God to have any purpose beyond the creation of H. sapiens, and you won’t allow him to give organisms the freedom to design themselves and their own ways of surviving, and it is these restrictions imposed by you on your God which lead to the logical impasse bolded above.

Your view of God's personality and His degree of purposeful activity is not my view of who He is. It never will be because what you offer is an indecisive God, not sure of where He is headed.


DAVID: You have not negated your humanized view of God. We don't know any of God's reasons for His actions. They are all guesses, but the bolded repeat of my suggested reason is one I can favor since God has consciousness and we are the only forms with it also.

dhw: Of course I haven’t negated any of my alternative interpretations of God’s nature, purpose and method. Why should I, when even you agree that your God probably has thought patterns etc. similar to ours? I appreciate your favouring at least one of them, which is perhaps the most “humanizing” of them all. Do you find it namby-pamby? But it leaves you with a problem. If God wanted to design an organism that would appreciate his work and have a relationship with him, why would he have first directly designed (your definition of evolution) millions of now extinct organisms - all complete in themselves - that were incapable of appreciating his work and having a relationship with him?

Because He chose to evolve us, and the econiches are the necessary food supply for an enormous number of species and humans. Your illogical suggestion always implies God should directly create us. How about the necessary bush?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum